I am writing in response to the article "Ready for College?" that was printed in the April 22 issue of the Tribune.
I understand that there are students who needed to take remedial classes before entering college for what they wanted to do, but I find it almost rude of Tim Saxton to make the comment that he is "not surprised by the number of high school graduates who need to take at least one remedial course when they get to college to 'catch up.'" Most of the high school graduates I know tested out of the basic courses at the colleges they attended. I have been a student in advanced classes for years, so that may make me biased, but I still think students are probably testing out of basic classes rather than getting stuck taking them on a greater basis than this article would suggest.
One way that students could get more prepared for college and not need to take remedial courses would be to set a GPA that is necessary for them to meet before they graduate. The student can keep a D-minus average and still graduate in a four-year period, as long as he or she does not fail any courses with an F. One can achieve this D-minus average by coming to school a couple days during the week and doing minimal work. More than a few students at my alma mater of Harding High School did not care about their education and barely came to school, but I know a great deal of them still graduated. Many of those students decided not to attend college, but if one wanted to go later in life, the student would have to take a number of remedial courses before he or she were adequately prepared to take classes in any kind of major.
If a student cares about schooling, the student will ensure that they do not end up taking remedial courses. If they are D-minus average type of students, what else is expected? A student who never cared in the first place will not care what courses he or she ends up taking, even if they are the same kind of classes advanced students would take in high school.